MNRAS 000,1–7 (2021) Preprint 16 July 2021 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0

Quantifying the Rarity of the Local Super-Volume

Stephen Stopyra1★, Hiranya V. Peiris1,2, Andrew Pontzen1, Jens Jasche2, Priyamvada Natarajan3,4,5 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK 2The Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics, Department of Physics, Stockholm University, AlbaNova, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden 3Department of Astronomy, Yale University, 52 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511, USA 4Department of Physics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208121, New Haven, CT 06520, USA 5Black Hole Initiative, 20 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ

ABSTRACT 15 −1 We investigate the extent to which the number of clusters of mass exceeding 10 푀 ℎ within the local super-volume (< 135 Mpc ℎ−1) is compatible with the standard ΛCDM cosmological model. Depending on the mass estimator used, we find that the observed number 푁 of such massive structures can vary between 0 and 5. Adopting 푁 = 5 yields ΛCDM likelihoods as −3 −5 low as 2.4 × 10 (with 휎8 = 0.81) or 3.8 × 10 (with 휎8 = 0.74). However, at the other extreme (푁 = 0), the likelihood is of order unity. Thus, while potentially very powerful, this method is currently limited by systematic uncertainties in cluster mass estimates. This motivates efforts to reduce these systematics with additional observations and improved modelling. Key words: cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe – cosmology: theory – methods: data analysis

1 INTRODUCTION sitivity, we have adopted values which set an expectation of 푂(1) above-threshold clusters. We use mass estimates from a variety of There is a long history of testing the Copernican principle, and the methods, allowing us to assess whether the systematic uncertainties ΛCDM model more broadly, by searching for structures or regions are sufficiently well-controlled to obtain a reliable likelihood under in the Universe that appear to be unlikely to arise by chance. Pre- the assumption of ΛCDM. vious studies have focused on the abundance of individual extreme In Sec.2 we outline our method for quantifying the rarity of a vol- structures, including clusters such as the Sloan Great Wall or Shapley ume containing multiple massive clusters. Sec.3 describes available (Nichol et al. 2006; Sheth & Diaferio 2011), and the Lo- mass estimation methods and discusses the available estimates for cal (Xie et al. 2014). The compatibility of individual structures clusters of interest in the local super-volume. We present our results such as these with ΛCDM can be quantified using extreme value on the rarity of the local super-volume in Sec.4. In Sec.5, we discuss statistics such as the Gumbel distribution (Gumbel 1958). Because the impact of possible systematics and considerations for improving the predicted number of halos declines exponentially with mass, even this method in the future. a single example of an unexpectedly high-mass cluster can be a sig- nificant challenge to ΛCDM. Recent works using these techniques include Davis et al.(2011) and Harrison & Coles(2011, 2012). However, the statistical power of individual objects is always lim- 2 METHODS ited, especially if their mass is observationally uncertain. A more In this section, we describe how the halo mass function can be used powerful approach is to consider the likelihood of multiple massive to place constraints on specific regions, such as the local super- structures coexisting in a small volume. ΛCDM provides a predic- arXiv:2107.06903v1 [astro-ph.CO] 14 Jul 2021 volume. By default, we assume a flat ΛCDM cosmology with the tion for the expected number density of clusters above a given mass Planck 2018 cosmological parameters (Planck Collaboration et al. threshold; combining this with a statistical model of fluctuations 2020). This corresponds to a matter density Ω푚 = 0.315, a matter away from the mean, one can quantify how likely it is to find the power spectrum normalisation 휎8 = 0.811, and ℎ = 0.674 for the −1 −1 observed number of clusters in a given volume. The results can in Hubble rate, 퐻0 = 100ℎ kms Mpc . We will also explore the principle be used to place constraints on extensions to ΛCDM such effect of lowering the power spectrum normalisation to agree with as primordial non-Gaussianity (LoVerde & Smith 2011). weak lensing results, adopting 휎8 = 0.741 (KiDS Collaboration et al. In this work, we consider the number of clusters exceeding the 2021) while fixing Ω푚 and ℎ to the Planck values. 15 −1 −1 threshold mass 10 푀 ℎ in the local region < 135 Mpc ℎ (ap- The expected number of clusters, 푁exp, within volume 푉 and with proximately 푧 0.046). We will refer to this volume as the local 6 mass 푀 > 푀thresh is obtained by integrating the halo mass function, super-volume. To obtain a sensitive test of ΛCDM, the choices of d푛(푀)/d푀, mass threshold and volume are coupled; for maximal statistical sen- ∫ ∞ d푛(푀) 푁exp = 푉 d푀. (1) 푀thresh d푀 ★ Contact e-mail: [email protected] To quantify the likelihood of the number of clusters actually observed

© 2021 The Authors 2 S. Stopyra et al.

15 −1 Halo counts within 135 Mpch 1 radius spheres consider the number of clusters with 푀200푐 > 10 푀 ℎ , where 0 10 푀200푐 is the mass within a radius such that the average density is 200 times the critical density of the Universe. This threshold is 1 10 somewhat arbitrary, but is chosen for two reasons: it corresponds to an ( ) 10 2 expected abundance of 푂 1 in a volume the size of the local super- volume; further, few clusters are found above this mass threshold 10 3 in the Universe at large (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016a; Hilton et al. 2018), since it is around the scale of the largest structures 4 10 that have had time to viralise by 푧 = 0 (Press & Schechter 1974). Consequently, the halo mass function above this mass is poorly 10 5

Fraction of Samples constrained observationally. A significantly lower mass threshold (for Poisson Distribution, N = 0.49 14 −1 10 6 exp example, 5 × 10 푀 ℎ ) would have 푂(10) or more clusters in the All regions local super-volume, making the computed likelihood insensitive to 10 7 the addition of one or two extreme-mass objects, while a significantly 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 higher threshold would run into essentially the same limitations in 15 1 Number of halos, M200c 10 M h statistical power that arise when studying individual objects.

Figure 1. Fraction of randomly-selected 135 Mpc ℎ−1 spheres in six simula- 15 −1 tions with a given number of halos above 푀200푐 > 10 푀 ℎ , compared 3 CLUSTER MASS ESTIMATES with a Poisson distribution with mean cluster count fixed to be the same as that of the simulations. We now turn to obtaining estimates for the masses of the most extreme local clusters. We briefly review different mass estimation methods in a given volume, we additionally require a statistical model for – with a view to highlighting advantages and current limits – and fluctuations away from this expectation value. discuss estimates available in the literature for massive local clusters Specifically, we assume that the likelihood of observing 푁 clusters and super-clusters. The clusters on which we focus are shown in in Fig.2, along with follows a Poisson distribution with mean 푁exp, i.e. their Abell catalogue numbers (Abell et al. 1989). These clusters are 푁 −푁exp 푁exp e consistently represented as massive halos in reconstructions of the L(푁|푁 ) = . (2) exp 푁! local super-volume that make use of Bayesian-Origin-Reconstruction from Galaxies (BORG). Specifically, the clusters we have selected cor- To test the validity of this assumption, we performed six 5123-particle respond to the nine most massive local structures in a reconstruction ΛCDM simulations with a side-length of 677.7 Mpc ℎ−1, from which performed by Jasche & Lavaux(2019) of the local super-volume, we randomly extracted spheres of the same size as the local super- using the 2M++ galaxy catalogue (Lavaux & Hudson 2011) at high volume. We confirmed that the distribution of the number of halos −1 15 −1 signal-to-noise ratio out to 135 Mpc ℎ . In the future, using im- with masses above 10 푀 ℎ was well approximated by a Poisson proved forward-modelling, BORG itself could be used to give inde- distribution, as shown in Fig.1. The simulated distribution shows pendent mass estimates for these clusters; however in this work we marginally lower probabilities in the high-푁 tail, meaning our Pois- only use more traditional mass estimates. son likelihoods should be regarded as an upper limit. Mass estimates for these clusters taken from the literature are col- This method was then used to quantify the rarity of the local lated in Fig.3. All mass estimates have been converted to 푀 super-volume by counting the number of clusters with masses above 200푐 15 −1 masses using the concentration-mass relationship of Bhattacharya > 10 푀 ℎ . Because the likelihood function is highly sensitive et al.(2013). Since much of the literature uses 푀 masses, the to 푁 (decreasing rapidly when 푁 > 푁 ), it is essential to obtain 500푐 exp typical correction is an increase in mass by ∼ 30%, with a maxi- accurate estimates of the cluster masses; we turn to this crucial issue mum correction of 31%. Assuming that all halos follow the mean in the next section. relationship will introduce some error into these extrapolations (in- Another important consideration is the sensitivity of 푁 to the exp cluded in the error bars on Fig.3), but cannot account for the large choice of halo mass function. To obtain accurate estimates of the discrepancies between different mass estimators that we highlight abundance of high-mass clusters, it is necessary to properly account below. for the effects of large-scale modes (Park et al. 2012). In particular, Kim et al.(2015) compared several mass functions in the literature to the halo number counts in the Horizon Run 4 simulation, which 3.1 Review of Mass Estimation Methods has a very large box size (∼ 3 Gpc). They found that most mass functions inaccurately predict the number of high-mass halos, which The most common methods used to estimate cluster masses fall into four main categories: dynamical estimates using the virial theo- can significantly affect 푁exp and hence the likelihood in Eq. (2). Using mass functions calibrated with large-volume simulations is rem (Merritt 1987); weak lensing (Bonnet et al. 1994; Fahlman et al. therefore essential to provide accurate likelihood estimates. For the 1994); X-ray masses (Evrard et al. 1996); and the Sunyaev Zel’dovich purposes of this work we use a mass function calibrated using the (SZ) method (Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1970, 1980). In this section we Horizon Run 4 simulations (Kim et al. 2015); we convert between briefly review each method in turn. the Friends-of-Friends masses used by the Horizon Run 4 mass Based on the virial theorem, Girardi et al.(1998) showed the virial function, and the spherical-overdensity masses used in this work, mass, 푀푉 , may be estimated using by using the relation of More et al.(2011), with concentrations given h푣2i by the Bhattacharya et al.(2013) concentration-mass relationship. 푀푉 = , (3) h푟−1퐹(푟)i As previously outlined, the choice of mass threshold, 푀thresh, is also important in interpreting the final likelihood. In this work, we where h푣2i is the average velocity dispersion and 퐹(푟) is the fraction

MNRAS 000,1–7 (2021) Quantifying the Rarity of the Local Super-Volume 3

Local super-volume: large clusters (halos) within 135 Mpch 1

Perseus-Pisces (A426) Hercules B (A2147)

Hercules A (A2199) Leo (A1367) Coma (A1656)

A548 Hercules C (A2063)

Shapley (A3571)

Norma (A3627) Observed locations Zone of Avoidance 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 /

Figure 2. Mollweide projection of the full sky in equatorial co-ordinates, showing the locations of the nine clusters considered in this work (blue circles). The projected density out to 135 Mpc ℎ−1 is also shown, as inferred by the BORG algorithm (Jasche & Lavaux 2019) using the 2M++ galaxy catalogue (Lavaux & Hudson 2011). The zone of avoidance is shown in grey and defined in Galactic co-ordinates as −5◦ < 푙 < 5◦, except within the region of the Galactic centre, −30◦ < 푏 < 30◦, where it includes −10◦ < 푙 < 10◦. of mass of the cluster that lies within the radius 푟 (Merritt 1987). The isothermal hydrostatic equilibrium (Ota 2012). These assumptions fundamental challenge in the virial theorem approach – and other are violated in merging clusters, which can lead to significant biases. dynamical methods – is to approximate the underlying matter dis- Feedback effects from the accreting active galactic nuclei (AGN) tribution, described by 퐹(푟). Early studies (e.g. Girardi et al. 1998) harboured by the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) are expected to assumed that the dark matter was traced by the galaxy distribution. redistribute and modulate the mass distribution in the innermost Later methods (e.g. Łokas & Mamon 2003) instead fit the moments of regions of clusters. As evident from X-ray data of the Perseus clus- the observed velocity distribution to a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) ter (Fabian et al. 2000), the choice of integrating the mass within the profile (Navarro et al. 1996). This improves the accuracy of masses significantly larger 푅200c (the radius such that the average density since one does not have to assume that the dark matter traces the clus- is 200 times the critical density) mitigates this effect. Overall, there ter galaxies. However, it is constrained by the assumption that local is evidence that the effects of cluster mergers are less significant for clusters are well-fit by a spherical NFW profile. Moreover, all dynam- X-ray measurements than for dynamical estimates (Takizawa et al. ical estimates can be inaccurate if the cluster is not in equilibrium, 2010). For the results in Fig.3, we use X-ray masses mainly from e.g., due to a recent merger (Takizawa et al. 2010). To partially mit- the MCXC catalogue (Piffaretti et al. 2011), with some estimates igate these systematics, one can fit the observed velocity dispersion from Babyk & Vavilova(2013) and Simionescu et al.(2011). to a dispersion-mass relationship calibrated on simulations (Munari et al. 2013; Aguerri et al. 2020). The thermal SZ effect allows mass measurements using the up- scattering of cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons by the Weak lensing is a commonly-used mass estimation method at high hot intracluster medium (Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1970, 1980). This redshift; however it has also been used locally, with several studies of produces a spectral distortion which can be detected with high- the (Kubo et al. 2007; Okabe et al. 2014; Gavazzi et al. precision measurements of the CMB (Planck Collaboration et al. 2009), A2199 (Kubo et al. 2009), and A2063 (Sereno et al. 2017). 2016b). The SZ masses are determined using a scaling relation- A significant source of systematic errors in weak lensing estimates ship between the Compton parameter, 푌 , and the cluster mass, arises from the contamination of the lensing signal from unassociated 푆푍 푀 . This scaling relationship is calibrated using X-ray estimates, structures that happen to lie along the line-of-sight. Without sufficient 푆푍 푀 . The dominant source of uncertainty is the assumed mass-bias, redshift precision, it can be difficult to distinguish cluster members 푋 푀 = (1 − 푏)푀 , which accounts for biases in X-ray masses such from lensed background galaxies and foreground galaxies, leading 푋 푆푍 as departure from hydrostatic equilibrium. We use the Planck 2015 to systematic overestimates of mass. SZ masses (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016b); this work estimates The X-ray approach (Evrard et al. 1996) makes use of ther- 0.7 < (1 − 푏) < 1.0. We include the corresponding uncertainty in mal bremsstrahlung emitted by hot cluster gas, generally assuming the error bars shown in Fig.3.

MNRAS 000,1–7 (2021) 4 S. Stopyra et al.

Mass estimates of clusters in the local super-volume (r < 135 Mpch 1) 1: Escalera et al. (1994) 12 7 2 2: Rines et al. (2003) Leo (A1367) 3: Woudt et al. (2007) 4: Kubo et al. (2007) 7 12 1 A548 5: Kubo et al. (2009) 6: Gavazzi et al. (2009) 7 9 7: Piffaretti et al. (2011) Hercules C (A2063) 12 13 8: Simionescu et al. (2011) 9: Kopylova & Kopylov (2013) 7 10 10 10: Babyk and Vavilova (2013) Shapley (A3571) 12 14 11: Okabe et al. (2014) 12: Planck Collaboration (2016b) 7 3 Norma (A3627) 12 13: Sereno et al. (2017) 14: Lopes et al. (2018) 12 7 9 10 15: Meusinger et al. (2020) Hercules A (A2199) 5 14 16: Aguerri et al. (2020)

7 12 2 6 10 Coma (A1656) 11 4 10 1015M h 1 7 12 9 14 Hercules B (A2147) Dynamical SZ 8 16 1 Perseus-Pisces (A426) 7 15 X-Ray Weak Lensing 1014 3 × 1014 5 × 1014 1015 2 × 1015 3 × 1015 1 Mass, M200c [M h ]

Figure 3. Mass estimates for nine massive clusters in the local super-volume. Shaded regions show the 1휎 bounds on estimates of the cluster mass, including both statistical and any systematic errors that have been accounted for. Numbers indicate the reference for each estimate, while colours indicate the method used in the mass estimate.

3.2 Individual clusters insufficient to distinguish between the X-ray/SZ and dynamical es- timates. An additional X-ray estimate has been provided by Babyk In this work, we focus our attention on nine of the most massive & Vavilova(2013), who obtain a higher mass than Piffaretti et al. clusters in the local super-volume, whose positions are shown in (2011). Fig.2, covering both hemispheres of the sky. We now briefly review what is known about each structure. The mass estimates that we Hercules B (A2147, A2151 & A2152): The group of clusters around discuss are compiled in Fig.3. A2147 is sometimes known as the Hercules B system, and includes A2151 and A2152. Like the Hercules A system, it is believed to be gravitationally bound and in the process of collapsing (Krempeć- Perseus-Pisces (A426): The Perseus-Pisces supercluster is domi- Krygier et al. 2002; Kopylova & Kopylov 2013). We will focus our nated by the rich Abell cluster A426 (also known as the Perseus Clus- attention on the largest of these three clusters, A2147: both Lopes ter). It was one of the first identified (Joeveer & Einasto et al.(2018) and Kopylova & Kopylov(2013) give virial estimates 1978) and is among the most massive in the local super-volume (Es- for the mass of this cluster, but disagree on the mass by a factor calera et al. 1994). However, there is considerable disagreement of ∼ 2. These dynamical estimates are also much higher than X- in the literature on its mass, with X-ray results (Simionescu et al. ray (Piffaretti et al. 2011) and SZ (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016b) 2011) pointing to a somewhat smaller mass than dynamical estimates estimates. Given that A2147 interacts with the two nearby clusters (Aguerri et al. 2020). The latter use a velocity-dispersion-to-mass re- A2151 and A2152, the assumption of dynamical equilibrium relied lationship studied in Munari et al.(2013), which uses simulations upon by all these methods may be questionable, and require more to account for baryonic effects. Meusinger et al.(2020) find an even detailed analysis of the entire system. larger mass using the virial method, which agrees with earlier virial theorem estimates such as those by Escalera et al.(1994). Hercules C (A2063 & A2052): The Hercules super-cluster contains a third major concentration of galaxies centred around the clusters Hercules A (A2199 & A2197): The pair of clusters A2197 and A2063 and A2052, which we dub the Hercules C system to distin- A2199 form the Hercules A portion of the Hercules supercluster sys- guish it from the other groups of Hercules clusters. Like Hercules tem, and is believed to be in the process of merging, according to the A and B, this group of clusters appears to be a merging system dynamical analysis by Krempeć-Krygier et al.(2002). Estimates vary made up of closely interacting clusters, with slightly lower masses for the mass of the largest member of the pair, A2199: Lopes et al. than Hercules A and B. Here, we focus on estimates of the mass of (2018) use the virial theorem with a pressure-term correction (Gi- A2063, which is consistently found to be the higher-mass of the two rardi et al. 1998) to estimate the mass of A2199, obtaining results clusters. Our main dynamical results are from Kopylova & Kopylov slightly higher than Kopylova & Kopylov(2013), but still consistent (2013), who find a higher mass than the X-ray/SZ results (Piffaretti with them. Both give higher masses than the X-ray estimates of Pif- et al. 2011; Planck Collaboration et al. 2016b). Sereno et al.(2017) faretti et al.(2011) and SZ results from Planck Collaboration et al. considered weak lensing of Planck SZ clusters, finding results which (2016b). A weak lensing estimate is also available from Kubo et al. are compatible with both dynamical and X-ray/SZ estimates. As with (2009); however this gives a very broad range of possible masses, the Hercules A and B systems, the effect of the close-interaction with

MNRAS 000,1–7 (2021) Quantifying the Rarity of the Local Super-Volume 5

15 −1 Cluster Count, 푁 , 푀200푐 > 10 푀 ℎ Likelihood (푁exp = 0.94, 휎8 = 0.81) Likelihood (푁exp = 0.37, 휎8 = 0.74) 0 0.39 0.69 1 0.37 0.25 2 0.17 4.6 × 10−2 3 5.4 × 10−2 5.7 × 10−3 4 1.3 × 10−2 5.2 × 10−4 5 2.4 × 10−3 3.8 × 10−5

15 −1 Table 1. Likelihood that a randomly-selected region of the ΛCDM Universe has 푁 clusters of mass 푀200푐 > 10 푀 ℎ . This follows from Eq.2. 푁exp is computed using the Horizon Run 4 mass function (Kim et al. 2015) with the Planck 2018 cosmology (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020) Ω푚 = 0.315, ℎ = 0.674. In the first column we show the likelihoods with the Planck 2018 value of 휎8 = 0.811, while in the second column we show the effect of a lower value from KiDS (KiDS Collaboration et al. 2021), 휎8 = 0.741, for the same Ω푚 and ℎ. nearby clusters on these mass estimates (in this case A2052) is not 4 RESULTS well-understood. We now summarize the implications of these mass estimates for Coma (A1656): The Coma super-cluster has two main clusters, cosmology. As can be seen from Fig.3, there are considerable vari- A1656 and A1367. The most massive of these, A1656, is known ations between different mass estimates for the nine massive clusters as the Coma cluster and has been widely studied. There have been we have considered. The error bands show the reported combined several attempts to estimate the mass of the Coma cluster using weak statistical and systematic errors for each of the cluster mass estimates, lensing: Kubo et al.(2007) find a relatively high-mass compared to which are in many cases significantly smaller than the variations be- more recent results (Gavazzi et al. 2009; Okabe et al. 2014); Okabe tween estimates. Dynamical estimates favour systematically higher et al.(2014) suggest that this may be because Kubo et al.(2007) masses than X-ray and SZ estimates, typically by a factor of three or do not properly account for the lensing effect of unassociated back- more. In some cases the discrepancy in mass estimates is close to an ground large scale structure. The more recent weak lensing results order of magnitude. are consistent with X-ray/SZ estimates (Piffaretti et al. 2011; Planck In Table1, we show the likelihood of observing different numbers 15 −1 Collaboration et al. 2016b), and also the dynamical results of Rines of clusters with 푀200푐 > 10 푀 ℎ in the local super-volume. This et al.(2003). Babyk & Vavilova(2013) compared virial and X-ray allows us to quantify the implications of discrepant mass measure- estimates of the masses of multiple clusters, including 퐴1656. Their ments for cosmology. We compute the likelihood for two different X-ray and virial estimates are both much higher than the X-ray/SZ es- values of 휎8: the higher value associated with the Planck 2018 cos- timates of Piffaretti et al.(2011); Planck Collaboration et al.(2016b). mology (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020) and a lower value favoured Leo (A1367): This is arguably the least massive of the nine clusters by the Dark Energy Survey (DES) (DES Collaboration et al. 2021) we consider. The cluster is believed to have undergone a recent and the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) (KiDS Collaboration et al. 2021) merger (Sun & Murray 2002), and so virial and X-ray mass estimates weak lensing results. If one assumes that SZ masses are reliable, there may be inaccurate. In Fig.3 we use the corrected virial mass estimate are no observed clusters above the mass threshold within the local from Rines et al.(2003), which produces a much higher mass than super-volume. If we instead assume the midpoint of the dynami- the X-ray/SZ estimates (Piffaretti et al. 2011; Planck Collaboration cal masses, there are four. In the most extreme interpretation of the et al. 2016b). collated measurements, one could argue there are five. In a conservative interpretation, therefore, the local super-volume Norma (A3627): This lies close to the zone of avoidance and appears is completely unremarkable for either choice of 휎8: the likelihoods to be associated with the ‘Great Attractor’. Due to its location, the are order unity. At the other extreme the ΛCDM model seems very cluster is not as well studied as some of the others considered here. −3 unlikely, yielding likelihoods as low as 2.4×10 for 휎8 = 0.81. The X-ray/SZ estimates (Piffaretti et al. 2011; Planck Collaboration et al. situation is exacerbated if 휎8 takes a lower value (0.74), yielding a 2016b) are in agreement, while a virial mass estimate was made likelihood of 3.8 × 10−5 at the extreme end. An extension to ΛCDM by Woudt et al.(2008), and gives a significantly higher mass. that predicts higher 푁exp would be strongly favoured, demonstrating Shapley (A3571): This cluster lies in the Shapley concentration. the potential power of this test. The test could also provide an addi- The main Shapley group of clusters is also known to be massive, but tional discriminator for the emerging 휎8 tension (KiDS Collaboration most of the rest of its members do not fall within the local super- et al. 2021; DES Collaboration et al. 2021). These possibilities mo- volume. The mass estimates for A3571 are bimodal. Three results tivate observational and modelling programmes to better understand agree despite using different techniques: dynamical (Lopes et al. the physical properties of these nearby massive clusters. 2018), X-ray (Piffaretti et al. 2011), and SZ (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016b). However, Babyk & Vavilova(2013) use two methods (dynamical and X-ray) to arrive at much higher estimates. We note that, as with A2199 and A1656, Babyk & Vavilova(2013) give 5 DISCUSSION significantly higher X-ray mass estimates than Piffaretti et al.(2011). We have performed a literature search to collate as many mass es- A548: This is a cluster that is believed to have significant substruc- timates as possible for nearby massive clusters, and illustrated the ture, centred around two main concentrations (Andreuzzi et al. 1998), potential for powerful cosmological tests based upon these results. and is thus likely to be in the process of undergoing a merger. The The current barrier to drawing cosmological conclusions is that the mass of the combined system was estimated by Escalera et al.(1994) mass estimates are in disagreement. using the virial theorem. X-ray (Piffaretti et al. 2011) and SZ (Planck The mass bias is one of the dominant systematics underlying 푆푍 Collaboration et al. 2016b) estimates give much lower mass than this and X-ray mass estimates. Medezinski et al.(2018) compared Planck dynamical estimate (Escalera et al. 1994). SZ estimates to weak-lensing results for the same clusters as an in-

MNRAS 000,1–7 (2021) 6 S. Stopyra et al. dependent check on the value of the mass bias, finding consistency AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS with Planck Collaboration et al.(2016b). However, mass calibra- The main roles of the authors were, based on the tion and cross-checks were all undertaken at high redshift. Andreon CRediT (Contribution Roles Taxonomy) system (https: (2014) investigated whether there is evidence for redshift evolution //authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/ in this bias, finding a modest effect (increasing the mass of some Journal-Authors/open-access/credit.html): low-redshift clusters by up to 10-15%). While they did not examine SS: data curation; investigation; formal analysis; software; visual- the lowest redshift clusters, again the level of correction is small isation; writing – original draft preparation. compared to the variation seen in Fig.3. While the X-ray and SZ HVP: conceptualisation; methodology; validation and interpreta- estimates therefore appear to provide a picture of self-consistency, tion; writing – review and editing. one must bear in mind that these methods have in common strong dy- AP: conceptualisation; validation and interpretation; writing – namical and symmetry assumptions, which may not be valid for any review and editing; funding acquisition. particular cluster, even if unbiased for the high-redshift population. JJ: data curation; resources; writing – review. There are a range of systematic concerns regarding dynamical PN: interpretation; writing – review and editing. estimates, which can potentially be addressed using better modelling, such as accounting for cluster sub-structure. A completely different dynamical approach, using large scale structures to infer the cluster masses, is offered by BORG (Jasche & Lavaux 2019). Improvements DATA AVAILABILITY to the forward modelling in the BORG algorithm are required in order The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to robustly resolve cluster scales; we will pursue this in future work. to the corresponding author. There is a dearth of weak lensing studies of these clusters, likely because the necessary accuracy for distances is hard to achieve for nearby structures (our study is restricted to 푧 0.046). Given that 6 REFERENCES the precision of photometric is frequently at the Δ푧 ∼ 0.05 level, contamination of the lensing signal with non-background and Abell G. O., Corwin Harold G. J., Olowin R. P., 1989, ApJS, 70, 1 non-cluster member galaxies is a significant problem for low redshift Aguerri J. A. L., Girardi M., Agulli I., Negri A., Dalla Vecchia C., Domínguez clusters. Palmero L., 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1681 In principle, weak lensing is the most robust mass estimator, pro- Andreon S., 2014, A&A, 570, L10 vided that accurate redshifts to a large number of local galaxies can Andreuzzi G., Bardelli S., Scaramella R., Zucca E., 1998, A&A, 337, 17 Babyk I. V., Vavilova I., 2013, Odessa Astronomical Publications, 26, 175 be obtained. This might be achieved, for example, using a dedicated Bhattacharya S., Habib S., Heitmann K., Vikhlinin A., 2013, ApJ, 766, 32 spectroscopic lensing survey, or the upcoming Local Volume Com- Bonnet H., Mellier Y., Fort B., 1994, ApJ, 427, L83 plete Cluster Survey (LoVoCCS) (Fu 2021). Meanwhile there exists DES Collaboration et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2105.13549 an intriguing situation where we cannot be sure whether the local Davis O., Devriendt J., Colombi S., Silk J., Pichon C., 2011, MNRAS, 413, super-volume is compatible with the standard cosmological model. 2087 Escalera E., Biviano A., Girardi M., Giuricin G., Mardirossian F., Mazure A., Mezzetti M., 1994, ApJ, 423, 539 Evrard A. E., Metzler C. A., Navarro J. F., 1996, ApJ, 469, 494 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Fabian A. C., et al., 2000, MNRAS, 318, L65 Fahlman G., Kaiser N., Squires G., Woods D., 1994, ApJ, 437, 56 The authors gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with Peter Fu S., 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 512.04 Coles and George Efstathiou regarding systematics in mass estima- Gavazzi R., Adami C., Durret F., Cuillandre J. C., Ilbert O., Mazure A., Pelló tion methods. The name ‘local super-volume’ was suggested to the R., Ulmer M. P., 2009, A&A, 498, L33 authors by Daniel Mortlock and is to our knowledge an original term. Girardi M., Giuricin G., Mardirossian F., Mezzetti M., Boschin W., 1998, SS thanks Corentin Cadiou and Jonathan Davies for helpful discus- ApJ, 505, 74 sions. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Gumbel E. J., 1958, Statistics of extremes. Columbia university press Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agree- Harrison I., Coles P., 2011, MNRAS, 418, L20 ment No. 818085 GMGalaxies. SS and AP were supported by the Harrison I., Coles P., 2012, MNRAS, 421, L19 Royal Society. HVP was partially supported by the research project Hilton M., et al., 2018, ApJS, 235, 20 Jasche J., Lavaux G., 2019, A&A, 625, A64 grant ‘Fundamental Physics from Cosmological Surveys’ funded by Joeveer M., Einasto J., 1978, in Longair M. S., Einasto J., eds, Symposium - the Swedish Research Council (VR) under Dnr 2017-04212, and International Astronomical Union Vol. 79, Large Scale Structures in the HVP and JJ were partially supported by the research project grant Universe. p. 241 ‘Understanding the Dynamic Universe’ funded by the Knut and Alice KiDS Collaboration et al., 2021, A&A, 645, A104 Wallenberg Foundation under Dnr KAW2018.0067. JJ acknowledges Kim J., Park C., L’Huillier B., Hong S. E., 2015, Journal of Korean Astro- support by the Swedish Research Council (VR) under the project nomical Society, 48, 213 2020-05143 – ‘Deciphering the Dynamics of Cosmic Structure’. This Kopylova F. G., Kopylov A. I., 2013, Astronomy Letters, 39, 1 work used computing equipment funded by the Research Capital In- Krempeć-Krygier J., Krygier B., Krywult J., 2002, Baltic Astronomy, 11, 269 vestment Fund (RCIF) provided by UKRI, and partially funded by Kubo J. M., Stebbins A., Annis J., Dell’Antonio I. P., Lin H., Khiabanian H., the UCL Cosmoparticle Initiative. The authors acknowledge the use Frieman J. A., 2007, ApJ, 671, 1466 Kubo J. M., et al., 2009, ApJ, 702, L110 of the UCL Kathleen High Performance Computing Facility (Kath- Lavaux G., Hudson M. J., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2840 leen@UCL), and associated support services, in the completion of LoVerde M., Smith K. M., 2011, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2011, 003 this work. This research has made use of the SZ-Cluster Database Łokas E. L., Mamon G. A., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 401 operated by the Integrated Data and Operation Center (IDOC) at the Lopes P. A. A., Trevisan M., Laganá T. F., Durret F., Ribeiro A. L. B., Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale (IAS) under contract with CNES Rembold S. B., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5473 and CNRS. Medezinski E., et al., 2018, PASJ, 70, S28

MNRAS 000,1–7 (2021) Quantifying the Rarity of the Local Super-Volume 7

Merritt D., 1987, ApJ, 313, 121 Meusinger H., Rudolf C., Stecklum B., Hoeft M., Mauersberger R., Apai D., 2020, A&A, 640, A30 More S., Kravtsov A. V., Dalal N., Gottlöber S., 2011, ApJS, 195, 4 Munari E., Biviano A., Borgani S., Murante G., Fabjan D., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2638 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 Nichol R. C., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1507 Okabe N., Futamase T., Kajisawa M., Kuroshima R., 2014, ApJ, 784, 90 Ota N., 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 973 Park C., Choi Y.-Y., Kim J., Gott J. Richard I., Kim S. S., Kim K.-S., 2012, ApJ, 759, L7 Piffaretti R., Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., Pointecouteau E., Melin J. B., 2011, A&A, 534, A109 Planck Collaboration et al., 2016a, A&A, 594, A24 Planck Collaboration et al., 2016b, A&A, 594, A27 Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, A&A, 641, A6 Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425 Rines K., Geller M. J., Kurtz M. J., Diaferio A., 2003,AJ, 126, 2152 Sereno M., Covone G., Izzo L., Ettori S., Coupon J., Lieu M., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1946 Sheth R. K., Diaferio A., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2938 Simionescu A., et al., 2011, Science, 331, 1576 Sun M., Murray S. S., 2002, ApJ, 576, 708 Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich Y. B., 1970, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 2, 66 Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich I. B., 1980, ARA&A, 18, 537 Takizawa M., Nagino R., Matsushita K., 2010, PASJ, 62, 951 Woudt P. A., Kraan-Korteweg R. C., Lucey J., Fairall A. P., Moore S. A. W., 2008, MNRAS, 383, 445 Xie L., Gao L., Guo Q., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 933

MNRAS 000,1–7 (2021)